Cthulhu D

I had considerable hearts support (I was south and had a completely undisclosed JTx in H), so perhaps I should rdbl.

I agree re: Variance. Jeff has done some analysis of this here: http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/bridge/study

This is basically my agreement, except if opener then continues on after a 3N or 4D bid it was an advance cue for slam.

Ignoring the poorbridge.com bidding demonstrated below by NS, what is the difference between PASS and RDBL for you? [hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hp1s(ART%20RELAY)p3hp3s(13%2B%205%2B%20!s)p4sp4n(RKCB)p5h(2%20no%20Q)d]133|100[/hv] East has a void and it went all float, making exactly (no slam makes), but it would have been nice to have an agreement about Pass and RDBL here. I think it makes sense to Pass to be heart tolerance and RDBL to be to play, but I'm not actually sure.

In other articles he opens broadly comparable hands 1m so given he specifically referenced Matchpoints I am going to assume he specifically makes this decision at MPs. @nige1: yes, that is precisely my point. That is a weird/intresting artifact of the scoring system. He's overriding his judgement to open 1suit because of the way to the scoring works.

I figure the objective of the two under transfers is to allow you to super accept or similar with the 1 under bid, but would this work as well? 1C-(2C) 2DHS Nat, NF 2NT: Stayman with a stopper? 3C: Invitational+ Diamonds 3D: Invitational plus hearts 3H: Invitational plus spades 3S: Transfer to 3NT? You could scrap the stayman with a stop option and just bid everything 2 under as well if you wanted to keep that.

The simplest is pretend partner opened a weak NT and play NT systems on, so dbl is stayman. Stayman needs to have values here so He can pass a dbl with the unbalanced club hand.

Isn't 3C 6 clubs? Reading comprehension test FAILED

Sorry, O meant paragraph one of his description of the hand, which is as follows

This is because 'weak' 'average' and 'strong' are purely defined in HCP and a hand with 13 spades does indeed only have 10. WBF doesn't include 'or equivalent playing strength' which perhaps it should but which should DEFINITELY be includes in explanations. hate people who explain things as a strong when it could just be 'tons of offence'

I definitely play a lot better at IMPs, and that may be biasing me. It is reasonable to assume this is because the system I play with a regular partner (which is hugely anti-field for MP games, we are typically the only pair playing 14-16 NT, the only pair playing assumed fit openers, the only pair without a 2H weak 2 opening, the only pair with 1C = clubs or balanced, etc, etc you get the idea), is more effective at swiss pairs and teams against opponents of my (intermediate at best) skill level. But I'm not saying you'll get good results by not using judgement at MPs, that is obviously dumb and a total straw man of my argument. I'm saying that match-points occasionally creates an incentive for you to make decisions that, based on your judgement, you think are inferior. Here is a little thing by a better player than me discussing illustrating issue: http://www.jeff-goldsmith.org/html/hardtoplan.html (paragraph one) Of course, this is a minor detail and is obviously swamped by the other decisions that you have to make (e.g. see, the next 4 paragraphs of the column!) but it's a very interesting feature of that form of the game.

It seems fairly clear to me that the decision to bid past 4H and try for slam is a proactive use of judgement. I think that is very different than refusing to use judgement when opening 1NT?

Right, the UK electoral system doesn't always (or even often) elect the Condorect candidate - that was my point. The system is fundamentally flawed! I think the two bridge situations are different. Bidding a thin slam at a teams match when you are behind is using your judgement effectively to maximise your win %. The parallels from other games is obvious - you take a big risk because the consequences of a loss are small. Similarly this is why you make a safety okay at IMPS but go for the maximum trick expectancy at MPs. Compare to the NT judgement at match points issue - here you are specifically refusing to use your judgement, because the scoring system does not reward it. This is flawed - a desirable attribute of a game is to maximise te opportunities to use your skills. Here one has been removed.

I'm not sure correlate is the correct term. The skills are not different between the two forms of the game. Fundamentally play skills boil down to 'what is the best line for X tricks with these cards on the bidding and play to date' and bidding is 'bidding to a contract that is Y% likely to make/not go off more than Z amount (for a balancing auction over 2M)' The only skill difference between the two is correctly setting your X and Y for the form of the game and that is a comparably small thing. The only reason I don't like match-points is because it encourages you to do things that you consider suboptimal (for example, Jeff Goldsmith on his website has a piece where he decides to open 1NT even when he'd prefer to open 1m because he knows that the field isn't doing it and the form of scoring stakes the entire board on your judgement) because the 'field protection' is worth it. This seems silly, it's like having an electoral system that doesn't result in the concordat candidate.

No, it can probably show a GF with 5 clubs and 4 spades though.

Eventually went with: 1D: 1M 4+ 1N Various balanced or club hands 2C: GF with 5 clubs (may be balanced, may be 4 if and only if 3334 exactly with 16+ HCP), or a (6)7-9 ish diamond raise with 4. 2D: Weak 2 in a major 2H: Reverse Flannery 2S: Invitational+ in diamonds 2N: Balanced invite 3C: Invitational with 6 clubs 3D: Preemptive diamond raise 3M: Splinter 3N: 3334 exactly 13-15 4C: Splinter 4D: Minorwood 4M: Exclusion RKCB Followups: 1D-2C

You can an amusingly similar name to the DOTA 2 developer who banned a guy for a gazillion years for unloading a torrent of racist abuse in voice chat. Eh, why not and have an option to disable them. It's not a solution though I agree, but not totally useless. Yes, this is the idea.

A review of the 2013 playoffs Division 1 teams convention cards has has: 2 x 3 weak 2s 2 x Multi 2D + muniberg 2 x 2D: Garbage multi + 2 weak 2s in 1st/2nd otherwise 3 wide ranging weak 2s 2 x Ekrens + wide ranging weak 2s. Fantunes (2X = 10-13 constructive) Multi 2D + CROs (5/5 two suiters) Constructive 2C+2D and 2 weak 2s (MOSCITO) Multi 2D and 2M = 5M with 8-11 Division Two has: 2 x 3 weak 2s 5 x different flavours of garbage multi + 2 weak 2s Mexican 2C, 2D GF, 2 weak 2s. 2 x Multi 2D + muniberg 2DHS = spades and the suit bid 1-2st, 3 weak 2s in 3rd/4th Something completely weird: http://www.abfevents.com.au/events/playoffs/2013/OW/cc/Appleton_Reynolds.pdf 2CD constructive, 2HS weak (Strong club relay context) It is the most popular single style, but does comprise less than 33% of the field. Lots of good pairs playing it though.

When they have made an artificial opener with a suit that they don't have, it's not optimal to play double as takeout. If they have opened a multi 2D and you have a takeout of hearts, pass and come back in when someone has bid hearts. Instead, double is values, like what you'd have if you overcalled 2NT. Secondly, against assumed fit preempts you really want to play penalty doubles. Looking for 4-4 fits is bad given the known bad trump splits, so just overcall naturally with 5 card suits. With the combination. We have a few meta agreements that cover this: a) When they have opener a suit they don't have, a double of the artificial bid is just values - instead of over-calling 2NT start with double and that suggests a penalty. If you want to make a light takeout bid pass and come back in. Once a 'strong NT' double has been made, subsequent doubles are penalty orientated. B) Takeout doubles are less valuable against assumed fit pre-empts because playing in a suit that breaks 4-4-4-1 is rarely fun. You need to be finding 5 card major suits at a minimum. C) If they are in a misfit and everyone knows it, you want to crush them. Doubles are now penalties. So when I play an artificial opener I haven't encountered before, partner and my generic defence is: This is fairly common in Australia for dealing with the latest wacky gadget (Consider how this works against multi - doubling the 2D is points, doubling the pass/correct bid is takeout, and subsequent doubles are 'we've got 'em' If they pass 2D, again, wield the axe). Applying that here, we want to X for penalties, as we KNOW they are in a giant misfit, partner has both majors and we have both minors (if he had minors he could have bid 2N, and if RHO had even 1 major he would have corrected, so we should put the axe on the table with alacrity and lead trumps. Where are they going to go? Edit: That said, in a US context (where it is always 5/4), penalty doubling is somewhat less likely to be correct in general, but in this situation surely RHO is even more likely to correct as partner is even less likely to have 3 diamonds than he is playing 4/4, so this hand commands a penalty double.

This is why you need an automated reporting mechanism. Barmar's thought is pauce because he hasn't looked at the measures implemented and have been demonstrated to be highly effective with other online games.

Dude, that is racist. Making excuses for it just makes you look bad. The problem is, again, that BBO does not have an effective match making mechanism. Let us look at the best matchmaking system on the market. It sensibly includes a process where people can report people for verbal abuse, and if an offender racks up lots of different reports they get banned from using in game chat for a short period. If they keep getting reported for being abusive they are banned from chatting for progressively longer periods. Also if you report a player for abuse you no longer see their messages. Valve has noted that most players who get chat banned once or twice then start to self moderate. A small minority gets longer and longer chat bans and self select pout. As an additional method, players who are abusive or have low completion percentages are sorted into a different match making queue and are match made with each other. This would address JustaDummy's issues in multiple ways A) he would be matched with partners of similar skill levels B) Abuse reporting is automated. This would ensure that the community can self police. B) Abusive players would be matched with similar and nice players with nice players. Overall this would massively improve the MBC experience

Yeah, x-imps is clearly better than Butler This is reasonable. I'm not sure "more skill/less luck game than IMPs" this is true, I think your argument is more accurately presented that it's a lower variance game, unless you can exactly equate the skills required. But anyway, it's probably likely there is a solution that combines the two! I've played an event that was a hybrid of BAM and IMPs scoring before that I quite liked, you could logically do the same thing with matchpoints in a Swiss event. Score it something like this: (VP Score of match at IMPs)+((Highest VP Scoring at imps in the field+lowest VP score at imps in the field)*(Matchpoint %))/2 I'm not sure that is correct, there are lots of ways to put the matchpoint score on the VP scale there and that is by no means the best one, but you get the idea I think that would remove the weird incentives in both forms of scoring.

Mhmm, sarcasm. I know it's popular in America, but it *is* a very weird feature of the scoring system that you are encouraged to play methods that you think are worse, because that results in a better expected score.

Isn't this basically a justification for serious events to be scored Cross Imps? This analysis only applies at matchpoints, due to the weird equating of 'bidding a slam' to 'getting 1 extra overtrick'. I think basically every serious event around here is scored X-imps (or butlered imps or similar), so obviously I've never really considered the field system, it only matters on random club nights.

I have a gadget for this sort of hand as well.